Document Type
Court Brief
Publication Date
11-21-2023
Abstract
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
When the Fourth Amendment is violated by an unconstitutional search, the suppression of wrongfully obtained evidence (the exclusionary rule) is often the only viable remedy that might deter government overreach and provide some redress for the constitutional violation. Though the Supreme Court has long treated remedial mechanisms as separate from their underlying rights, Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), and while limited exceptions to the suppression requirement have existed for years, recent expansion of the “good faith exception” in the digital age imposes unprecedented threats to privacy and security.
A porous or expansive view of the good faith exception threatens to swallow the exclusionary rule entirely, undermining the Fourth Amendment rights of all people—whether guilty, innocent, or never accused of a crime. An ever-expanding version of the good faith exception, like the one endorsed by the district court below, means we are all more likely to have our digital data surveilled and to have no redress when that surveillance is unconstitutional.
This is no idle concern. Instead, as shown by our empirical study concerning its use, expansion of the good faith exception is pervasive and harmful to Fourth Amendment rights. If affirmed, the rationale of the court below would extend application of the good faith exception to the detriment of everyone’s constitutional rights. This Court should reject such a rule.
Recommended Citation
David B. Owens, Rachel Nowlin-Sohl, Averill L. Aubrey, Megan Haygood, Kayleigh McNiel, and Michael C. Orehek, Brief of Fourth Amendment Scholars as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendant-Appellant on the Good Faith Exception Issue, U.S. v. Holcomb, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Docket No. 23-469 (2023), https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-court-briefs/76
Included in
Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Evidence Commons, Fourth Amendment Commons